Paper Summary:

Utilitarians were not so idealistic that they neglected to address the issue of punishment. The notion of a retributive justice, or an eye for an eye, went against Utilitarian principles as it promoted unhappiness rather than happiness. They did, however, accede to the existence of a prison system on two conditions. The first was that, by locking the criminal away, future unhappiness might be prevented in that the criminal was incapacitated and could, therefore, commit no more crimes. The second condition was that prisons become facilities for rehabilitation and not punishment, thereby promoting the happiness of the criminal as well as society in general. Kant (1724-1804) defined a philosophical principle known as the Categorical Imperative. Unlike the Utilitarians, who believed there was no right or wrong way to do things, only a better way, (i.e., the way that would lead to the greatest happiness for society), Kant believed in a set of rules from which man could not deviate. Moral rules, then, were categorical and not dependent on personal whims or desires. You should not lie under any circumstance. You should help people whether you want to or not.

Visitors who viewed this Essay also liked these:

• Essay # 89547 : "Retributive Views of Punishment"
• Research Paper # 75507 : "The Moral Dimensions of Punishment"
• Persuasive Essay # 107434 : "Moral Dimensions of Punishment"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: